
En lo que posiblemente sea el film independiente con mejor promoción en el 2025, "Good Boy" relata la historia de "Indy" un perro de raza "Retriever de Nueva Escocia" quien es el fiel compañero de "Todd", un joven hombre que después de padecer problemas de salud decide irse a vivir junto a su fiel amigo a la cabaña abandonada de su abuelo; lo que no sabe Scott es que en ese alejado lugar se encuentra un ente oscuro que le acechará en cada momento y solamente tendrá como defensa a un fiel compañero que hará todo lo posible para salvarlo; con esa simple sinopsis creo que no había nada más que esperar de este film que usa el terror sobrenatural para relatar la vieja historia de amistad entre el perro y el hombre, pero que anteriormente fue relatada desde el punto de vista del humano y que en esta oportunidad, sin humanizar a la mascota, se decide dar todo protagonismo al perro.
In what is possibly the best-promoted independent film of 2025, Good Boy tells the story of Indy, a Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever who is the faithful companion of Todd, a young man who, after suffering health problems, decides to go and live with his loyal friend in his grandfather's abandoned cabin. What Scott doesn't know is that in that remote place there is a dark entity that will stalk him at every turn, and his only defense will be his faithful companion, who will do everything possible to save him. With this simple synopsis, I think there was nothing more to expect from this film, which uses supernatural horror to tell the old story of friendship between man and dog, but which was previously told from the human point of view. This time, without humanizing the pet, they decides to give the dog the leading role.

La perspectiva de quién relata la historia en un film siempre es un factor relevante y en mi opinión es lo que determina al verdadero protagonista, ya que es quién debemos conectar para de alguna manera sentir empatía o hasta aberración; en esta oportunidad la empatía estaba más que ganada por quien debe ser el guía en toda la historia; creo que esa es una excelente decisión por parte de Alex Cannon y el director del film, Ben Leonberg, al momento de escribir el guion que seguramente al no presentar tantos diálogos, se puede pensar que fue el más fácil de escribir, pero creo que había mucha experiencia personal en poder plasmar la relación de los dos personajes principales y lo cual es de suma importancia para el desarrollo de la historia y como dije con anterioridad, para crear una completa empatía hacia la historia, ya que personas que tienen mascotas pueden sentirse relacionadas con varias de las escenas.
The perspective of the person telling the story in a film is always an important factor and, in my opinion, it is what determines the true protagonist, since it is the person we must connect with in order to feel empathy or even revulsion. In this case, empathy was more than earned by the person who should be the guide throughout the story. I think this was an excellent decision by Alex Cannon and the film's director, Ben Leonberg, when writing the script. Since there isn't much dialogue, one might think it was the easiest script to write, but I believe it took a lot of personal experience to capture the relationship between the two main characters, which is extremely important for the development of the story and, as I said before, to create complete empathy with the story, since people who have pets can relate to several of the scenes.

La manera de enfocar la narrativa desde la perspectiva del perro era sin ninguna duda lo que más me causó expectativa; en mi opinión, Leonberg hizo un correcto trabajo al espectador en la visual del Indy, y no solo eso, también se enfocó en la manera en como funciona su audición y olfato, siendo herramientas que nos ayuda a conocer como percibe el mundo que rodea; todas esas características ayudan a impulsar los elementos de terror y suspenso en esta historia, ya que es Indy quien supuestamente ve y percibe la maldad que rodea a su amigo y eso siempre hace que exista la sensación de estar alerta a cualquier amenaza que padezca Todd; ahora, como es de esperar, la historia no solo se debe enfocar en la perspectiva del perro, Leonberg tiene la oportunidad de realizar tomas que desarrollan la historia, principalmente la relación entre Todd e Indy, son momentos breves, pero necesarios que ayudan al espectador a saber el porqué deben ambos personajes experimentar el terror que los acecha.
The way the narrative was approached from the dog's perspective was undoubtedly what excited me the most. In my opinion, Leonberg did a good job of showing the viewer Indy's visual perspective, and not only that, but he also focused on how his hearing and sense of smell work, which are tools that help us understand how he perceives the world around him. All these characteristics help to drive the elements of horror and suspense in this story, as it is Indy who supposedly sees and senses the evil surrounding his friend, which always makes us feel alert to any threat Todd may face. Now, as expected, the story should not only focus on the dog's perspective. Leonberg has the opportunity to shoot scenes that develop the story, mainly the relationship between Todd and Indy. These are brief but necessary moments that help the viewer understand why both characters must experience the terror that haunts them.

El perro que protagoniza este film, es la mascota de Leonberg, así que no le dificultó hacerse con el rol principal de la película; Indy quien interpreta a "Indy", es el mejor personaje, es un amigo incondicional, protector, preocupado, dispuesto a todo para ayudar a su dueño; la manera de como está escrito es excelente porque como protagonista debe explorar y buscar primeramente una respuesta y después una solución para salvarse él y a "Todd", justamente eso es lo que me ha gustado de Indy porque no se limita a ladrar, dormir y nada más, su rol es de proteger y hacer todo lo posible para ayudar; no hay ninguna duda que como personaje está escrito como homenaje a todo can que ayudo a su dueño y amigo a solventar cualquier problema o ser un gran acompañante en la vida.
The dog that stars in this film is Leonberg's pet, so it wasn't difficult for him to land the lead role in the movie. Indy, who plays "Indy," is the best character. He is an unconditional friend, protective, caring, and willing to do anything to help his owner. The way he is written is excellent because, as the protagonist, he must first explore and search for an answer and then a solution to save himself and "Todd." That's exactly what I liked about Indy because he doesn't just bark, sleep, and nothing else. His role is to protect and do everything possible to help. There is no doubt that as a character he is written as a tribute to every dog who has helped his owner and friend solve any problem or been a great companion in life.

Good Boy es un film sumamente corto y ese es un gran punto a favor; considero que es una historia muy bien planeada que explora la relación entre un humano y un perro, la importancia del acompañante y la fidelidad, creo que es lo que más me ha gustado del relato porque funciona muy bien en el momento en que el terror hace aparición en la historia lo cual es muy bien usado y no es exagerado lo cual sumo a lo pausado del relato a pesar de ser como señalé, ser un film con una corta duración, pero es bastante correcto que funciona bien con respecto a su definición de ser terror sobrenatural lo cual aprecio a pesar de ser relatada desde la perspectiva de un perro. Mi consejo para quien decida ver está película es que como yo, no creen grandes expectativas, este es un film simple, con un presupuesto corto, con escenografías lúgubres, una historia oscura, en dónde la esperanza la provee un perro, uno que me hizo recordar a todo amigo incondicional que he tenido en todos mis años y que me generó más aprecio a Roky, mi perro actual y al que le dedicó esta reseña.
Good Boy is an extremely short film, which is a big plus; I think it's a very well-planned story that explores the relationship between a human and a dog, the importance of companionship and loyalty. I think that's what I liked most about the story because it works very well when the horror appears in the story, which is very well used and not exaggerated, which adds to the slow pace of the story despite being, as I pointed out, a short film. but it is quite accurate and works well in terms of its definition as supernatural horror, which I appreciate despite it being told from a dog's perspective. My advice to anyone who decides to watch this film is that, like me, they should not have high expectations. This is a simple film, with a low budget, gloomy sets, and a dark story, where hope is provided by a dog, one that reminded me of all the unconditional friends I have had over the years and made me appreciate Roky, my current dog, even more. This review is dedicated to him.
Cover image edited in canva; the image was taken from the following source
I have used deepl.com as a translator
----


The Conjuring 2 is one of those rare things where the sequel does not suck ass, which honestly surprised the hell out because most horror sequels just fall flat and become cash grabs. After that Annabelle disaster I was not expecting much from this whole universe thing but James Wan came back and reminded everyone how to actually do a proper scary movie, the man knows what he is doing behind the camera and it shows in every single scene, yesterday I put out the review for "The Devil Made Me Do It" that is not directed by Wan and you can notice the difference. This time Ed and Lorraine Warren head to England to deal with the Enfield case which involves a family getting terrorized by some spirit that latches onto this little girl Janet, just as the first one its a similar concept and even though it still works great, it goes straight into building tension from the start, just nonstop anxiety, one creepy moment after another without giving you much time to breathe. The scares here are not just cheap jump scares where something pops out of nowhere, the movie shows the ghost face right in front giving it body and character from the start not just an invisible entity opening doors, this gives the brain a second to process what is happening before it actually hits, that is what makes it feel organic and way more effective. The young actress playing Janet did a damn good job carrying a lot of the weight, if she had been bad the whole thing would have fallen apart but she nailed it, the second part gets into the investigation stuff where the movie plays with the idea of whether this is all a show or not, kids lie all the time so that doubt adds another layer to it. James Wan uses sounds from the time where the movie develops like the TV or the squeaky couch, its so immersive that even familiar situations scary again, he makes the whole thing work when it could have easily been another forgettable horror movie because again its the same concept as the first one just told different under different conditions, work out better than I expected, many sequels just sux because they cant do better than the first one.

The scares in this movie work because James Wan understands timing and atmosphere better than most horror directors that have work on the franchise, he doesnt rely on loud noises and things jumping at the camera every five minutes, the buildup is where the real fear comes from, getting to now better the characters specially those affected and tormented by the demon, there is something really special this time and is that you end up caring for Bill too even though the old man is a bastard when ever he wants to. That scene where Janet is home sick and the tv keeps changing channels by itself feels heaving within the atmosphere with rain outside and the house feeling empty and isolating, you know something bad is about to happen, but Wan takes his time letting the tension build until Bill Wilkins finally shows himself in the reflection of the tv screen. The crooked man stuff is the only part that feels unnecessary and out of place but still works so good mainly because of the lighting and the isolation of the place, it shows up twice to scare the little brother Billy, but it has nothing to do with the actual story, does feels like it was added just because they had the budget for it, that weird effect where the dog transforms into the crooked man looks cool too even though the movie is not focus on it. The climax gets a little too over the top with all the special effects, after spending two hours building this slow burn horror atmosphere it suddenly turns into this big action scene with Valak roaring and Ed almost getting him fall on a giant spike, a vision Lorraine had but its a classic cliche that the worst vision usually never end up happening, good vs evil at the end of the day. It was still intense and well done but it does feel like a downshift from the rest of the movie. Lorraine figuring out Valaks name and using it to banish the demon back to hell is satisfying even if the execution is a bit corny, the way she yells the name while Ed is dangling out a window is pure exorcist energy without having to just copy paste it, I mean we have seen almost everything about a possession from Hollywood movies so I doubt now days there is anything they can come up with that surprise anyone, as I mention its a about the build up and getting to know the characters that does the heavy lifting. The movie wraps up with everything being fine which feels a little too clean considering how brutal the haunting was, overall this is a solid 8 out of 10 for me, its not quite as tight as the first Conjuring but it does more with character development and emotional connection, which makes up for the slightly weaker pacing in the middle section and I would definitely recommend it to anyone who enjoyed the first one or just wants to see a well made horror movie that actually tries to first make you care about the characters and then try to be scary.





























